About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
it as enemy combatant, military court. i know john mccain, lindsey graham, couple of others are pushing for that. you need a little more evidence to know whether you can do that. you really have to know, did he become part of the terrorist war against the united states? these e-mails and texts that they're discovering kind of make a pretty good case that he was part of a group that's at war against the united states. if you can make that case, then you could try him in a military court. you could try him in guantanamo bay and not have the spectacle of this trial having to take place in boston or some other place where they would change venue. >> are you sure about military court? as i understand, it was for noncitizens and for foreign nationals. >> if a citizen becomes part of the war effort against the united states -- let's take an example like this. let's take the second world war. let's say an american citizen went to germany and joined the nazi army and invaded the united states, we could try that person in a military court. now, the nature of this war is so ambiguous, you're going
heard in that report from mike emanuel, lindsey graham, republican from south carolina said let's go quickly. essentially we have terrorists in our midst. we might. let's find out who all of these 11 million people who have come here illegally are but does anyone think that terrorists will step to the front of the line to register? >> you know, look. this is the broader question of will, will this immigration reform bill make us safer? i think gram gram overstated the argument, you're right. -- lindsey graham. you're a terrorist attempting to be member of a sleeper cell it is unclear you will necessarily surface as this proposed new law requires you to do and make yourself known to authorities. on the other hand here is the ironic thing. in a way the bill could make us safer from this perspective. the two brothers came here when their family came here. their family came here look like they had other families already here. the parents of two the brothers had a brother, their uncle already here in the united states and they therefore appear like they might have come here, they got extr
are following today along with our top story out of boston. just yesterday senator lindsey graham warned islam is extremists are still a serious threat to our nation. >> our nation is at war, the enemy is radical islam, defined as the taliban, al-qaida, and affiliated groups. the question i have regarding this case, is there any association between these two individuals and the groups i just named to allow enemy combatant status to be conferred upon the suspect in boston. jenna: we now know according to the white house that is not going to happen. senator lindsey graham republican of south carolina is a member of the judiciary committee and stepped out of a hearing to join us. nice to have you back on the program. >> thank you very much. jenna: let's talk a little bit about what you had to say about radical islam. you say yo we need to up our game. what specifically do you mean by upping our game against radical islam. >> the first thing we need to do is reject the narrative of this administration that osama bin laden is dead, the wars are receding and we are all safe. they've been trying to s
/11. well, senator lindsey graham has been outspoken on how the younger suspect ought to be handled by authorities. here's senator graham. >> two things should happen. when the public safety exception expires, and it will here soon, this man, in my view, should be designated as a potential enemy combatant, and we should be allowed to question him for intelligence-gathering purposes to find out about future attacks and terrorist organizations that may exist. >> mike: there's a part of me that really wants to agree with the senator. he's my friend, and i like him a lot, but if he's asking us to ar understanding of the due process of law that has established us as a unique light among the darkness in this world, then i have to think through that very carefully. yes, i want to be able to question these guys. no, i don't want them to get all lawyered-up. but at the same time we're a country of laws. i do want our country to acknowledge terrorism when it's obvious terrorism. for example, i want us to say, fort hood, that was terrorism. little rock, the shooting of the soldier outside the
court. i know john mccain, lindsey graham, couple of others are pushing for that. you need a little more evidence to know whether you can do that. you really have to know, did he become part of the terrorist war against the united states? these e-mails and texts that they're discovering kind of make a pretty good case that he was part of a group that's at war against the united states. if you can make that case, then you could try him in a military court. you could try him in guantanamo bay and not have the spectacle of this trial having to take place in boston or some other place where they would change venue. >> are you sure about military court? as i understand, it was for noncitizens and for foreign nationals. >> if a citizen becomes part of the war effort against the united states -- let's take an example like this. let's take the second world war. let's say an american citizen went to germany and joined the nazi army and invaded the united states, we could try that person in a military court. now, the nature of this war is so ambiguous, you're going to get a lot of arguments as to
on watching that first-hand. lindsey graham says we need to up our game. we're still at war. now there's the big debate on spending right now. is this the time that to cut homeland security spending or to go after that budget or what is your view on that? because you know for two years now you've been talking about debt and deficit spending. and in this sense it all ties back together. >> well, what's driving our spending and driving our debt is the fact that there are 10,000 baby boomers like me retiring every day. 70,000 this week. 3.5 million this year. social security, medicare, there is no money there in those fund. it has all been spent. people are living longer, accessing medicaid. so the real drivers of the debt primarily are our big entitlement programs that won't survive in their current form unless we make some changes. so it has got, it really has nothing to do with what we call the discretionary spending pot. bill: understood. homeland security spending is not touched? >> we have the sequester because the president won't get serious about solving our big spending problem.
on and is he prosecuted as an enemy combatant as senator mccain and lindsey graham and others -- >> martha: do you expect this administration to do that? >> no, because they've stated they will not hold american citizens indefinitely, even though -- >> martha: that's established under the supreme court -- >> the defense authorization act of 2012, they can. there have been statements by the president that they wouldn't enforce it. but if they wanted to enforce it, they could at this point. this will become a subject of debate. what's best for america? hold them forever or try them? let's see what happens. >> martha: as always, great to have you. >> good to see you. >> martha: bill? >> bill: martha, there is still -- they're still collecting evidence on boylston street. we saw the haz-mat suits on a short time ago. that process still continues. boston shows its resilience. the residence come out cheering the efforts of police and the investigation. as that continues, too, the applause from last night will be memorable in this city's long and historic tradition. [ cheers and applause ] >> usa! us
their fingerprints? voters? records? >> let me give a shout-out to marco rubio and john mccain and lindsey graham who aren't backing down. some free advice to the republican party. republican party lost the hispanic vote. if there isn't some effort to reach out for a lot of the people who live in this country you can kiss off any chance, bill, for any foreseeable future -- >> chris: yeah, bill. [ laughter ] let me say on bill's defense he is pro-immigration reform. >> i'm more skeptical of it now than i was six or seven months ago for this reason, with all due respect. let's have serious public policy arguments about this and begin asking how this man who has been reported to the f.b.i. in 2011, went abroad six or seven months came back and had russian passport. and no problem at all. maybe someone should look at that and look at the border security before we move ahead with 880-page immigration bill. >> the bill is based on border security. >> would it help -- >> we should ask these questions and we should maybe have more detailed questions asked for people who come from certain countries, yes. >> w
understand senator lindsey graham correctly, is what he was proposing is by making him an enemy combatant, that he would be turned over to the military to be questioned for a period, 30 days, and whatever he said during that 30 days could not be used against him when he gets turned back over for a federal trial. i think that's what he said. you know, which is different than what i think some people thought he meant originally. but anyway, i also thought it was interesting that the defendant is, according to the magistrate, and we have a copy of the transcript from the court hearing today, is that he is alert, mentally competent, and lucid. they did talk to him a little bit. i guess they might have got some information out of him the last day or so, would you expect? >> you know, i think what we have to do here, greta, as you are pointing out, is to separate the whole notion of what would be admissible in a criminal trial. i think there's very little doubt that he will be found guilty in a criminal trial; that he very likely will receive the death penalty. there's a lot of evidence out the
on in this hearing right now between lindsey graham and janet napolitano. we will get into it more later. the gist of it is why didn't we know about tamerlan's trip to russia, given the fact that he had been -- he had been, you know, asked questions already by the fbi, and at one point janet napolitano in this hearing today suggested, well he pinged on the way out. we picked him up on the way out. mike levine sailed he was on a very large watch list not a terror watch list that doesn't have a whole lot of significance. the big thing here, bob is are we doing what we need to be doing in terms of keeping track of people who have been on the radar in this country, or are we throwing up our hands and saying we can't find anything on them so we are done with that. >> this is the third time the fbi has let people slip through their fingers. they interviewed the guy before he went to russia. then he went to russia in an area near chechnya and he was there for six months. at that point it would seem to me it would trigger something, somewhere along the line. martha: you would think. >> this guy has been a
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)